www.serellan.com - Designing video games, the internets, and other stuff...

November 07, 2009

Max Brooks will get you killed...

Max Brooks is a great author.His book, World War Z, is THE recent definitive
work in zombie fiction.However, after
reading a recent interview, I feel it is finally time for me to speak out.Brooks also wrote The Zombie Survival Guide,
which I found an amusing take on the coming apocalypse, and at least provided
the masses with some guidance on taking on the shambling undead.I thought I could look past the inaccuracies in
the book, as the intent was good.But Brook’s
recent statements have proved me wrong.

In a recent interview
at The Washington Post, Brooks was asked the following:

Ashburn, Va.: My friend and I are having a
heated debate here, could you help us settle it? He says that a sawed-off shotgun is the preferred
shotgun to blow zombie heads off, because it is less cumbersome and not
detrimental to the carrier's mobility. I say that a standard shotgun is best, because the
sawed-off's range is too short to be effective. You would need to get much too
close to the offending zombie in order to get a good shot off. Can you settle this once and for all?

Max Brooks: BOTH shotguns are a problem. How
many 12 guage rounds can you stuff in your pants? Shotgun shells are big, heavy
and give you least bang for your bug, litteraly. Better stick with a .22, or
even better, something that doesn't need to be reloaded like a machete. And
don't worry about shooting zombies at long range. If they're that far away,
just walk in the oposite direction.

This answer is indicative of Brooks’
statements in The Zombie Survival Guide, as well as many other interviews.The problem is; it is plain wrong.Brooks is a great author, as World War Z
shows, but he doesn’t know shit about zombie engagement, and his views are endangering
the living all over the globe who buy into his gospel.

Now, on this subject, I agree, a 12 gauge
isn’t the optimal round for zombie engagement.
However, to suggest that a .22 is a better choice is simply ridiculous. Yes, a .22 round can kill a zombie. So can a pencil. Both are great to take down zombies if you
are A) Extremely skilled with the weapon OR B) Extremely lucky. Otherwise, get fucked.

In the concealed carry world, where
a lethal shot to the body cavity or even the femoral artery in the leg can stop
an attacker, there is debate on whether a .32 ACP, .38 Special, .380, or 9mm is
the minimal round for self defense.The
.22 LR doesn’t even come into the conversation, and these are situations that
do not include the requirement to pierce a human skull with enough energy to
destroy the function of the brain to stop the threat.

The idea that a .22 LR “bounces
around” inside the skull and thus causes as much trauma as a .45 ACP in a
headshot is an urban legend, one that is unfortunately propagated by Brook’s
writings. Can it happen? Yes; just as a
slingshot COULD launch a ball bearing that goes through the soft spot in a
zombie’s skull and drop them. But the idea of the .22 LR being that lethal in
untrained hands against a zombie is, in all reality, a joke. Advocating the .22
LR as an effective zombie-stopping round is just plain irresponsible.

I mentioned earlier that I didn’t
disagree that a 12 gauge round wasn’t the best anti-zombie cartridge.Why, with all my earlier ranting, would I say
this?Simple.It is overkill for the capacity-to-kill
ratio.Yes, 12 gauge buckshot or slug
will blow the fuck out of a zombie head.BUT…12 gauge rounds are big and heavy.Even considering a bite-only infection vector (that is to say
discounting splash fluid infection), the 12 gauge is devastatingly effective
against a single or small number of zombie adversaries, but not practical over
long term engagements due to the limited amount of rounds in your weapon and those
that you can carry.Also, 12 gauge
buckshot rounds, while effective, have a limited range.Now, Brooks has asserted (while at the same
time advocating the superbly ineffective .30 carbine round for some reason)
that you should never engage Zombies at range, but if a mob of 20 Zombies is
shambling towards my house, I sure would love to be able to start picking them
off reliably at a range past 20 yards.

If resupply is not a problem, I
actually advocate the P90 or PS90 in 5.7x28mm, this weapon fires a
high-velocity round that will easily penetrate a skull, provide enough kill
energy to scramble the brain, and has a great magazine capacity and economy
when it comes to carrying a large number of rounds on a person.

Unfortunately, the P90 and the
associated 5.7x28mm round are rare in the US due to economics and bullshit
government regulations.It is also
extremely expensive.With this in mind,
the average civilian would be better served outfitting themselves with a good
5.56x45mm or 7.62x39mm semi-automatic rifle, or even a good 9mm carbine for
zombie engagement, along with of course a reliable 9mm or .45 ACP sidearm.The standard intermediate cartridge fired from
a semi-automatic rifle, along with most pistol calibers fired from carbine-class
weapons in semi-automatic mode will efficiently penetrate a zombie skull and
drop the undead.All that being said; I
wouldn’t throw away a 12 gauge shotgun if I had to grab it to drop shamblers.It blows big holes in things quite efficiently.

Last, but not least, I have to argue
against this idea that the machete is the ideal anti-Zombie hand-to-hand
weapon. To stop a zombie you must
destroy the head, i.e. crush its skull and incapacitate the brain. A machete just isn’t the weapon to do that
task. Don’t believe me? Take a machete and try and hack through a coconut
in single swipe. It’s hard to do and takes
a lot of practice. A mace or even a
simple hatchet serves the purpose much better.
A machete is made to cut foliage, period. Just like Brook’s statements that a .22 or a
.30 carbine is the ideal zombie defense round, his statements that a machete is
the ideal close combat zombie weapon is not only flawed, it will get people
killed.

Max Brooks is a great writer. But please don’t think that this means he
knows what he is talking about when it comes to tactical engagement of the
undead. He will get you killed if you
buy into his bullshit.

Comments

While I agree with the first part of your post, I am still a proponent of the machete. I believe the idea is to sever the head from the torso, not so much as to use the machete as a "melon cracker."

I am a firm believer in a Serrated Machete (see: http://www.usknife.com/index.php?view=details&id=15) as an extremely valuable tool to keep on your person. Is there a school of thought that thinks decapitation is not a viable way to stop a Zombie? I am a firm believer that the head cannot live without the body, and vice-versa. As such, a tool to pare the two seems effective.

Decapitation will stop a zombie, although the head will still be a threat (as the head will still be active and capable of biting).

Again with a machete, while the idea of severing heads is a nice one, it isn't practical. There is a reason the guillotine was invented; even trained executioners with heavy axes often had difficult times cleanly separating the heads of their victims, often taking several strikes to kill.

If machetes were such effective close combat weapons, then they would have been popular in the past. An effective slicing weapon either needs weight, as with a sabre or cutlass, or extreme sharpness, such as a katana. To test this, find a small sapling tree, like an alder, 2-3 inches thick, and try to hack it down with one swing from a machete. It's tough!

I agree with this post. The only complaint I would have is saying that a hatchet is better than a machete. Like you said, the machete may not have the ability to get through the skull or sever the head consistently, but it can still disable a zombie much easier than a hatchet. By going for tendons and muscles you can render a Z relatively motionless and leave it for later. While with the hatchet your only viable option is to get through the skull. You would need much greater accuracy to disable the target any other way. And cracking the skull takes a hell of a swing from well within grabbing range putting you at serious risk. A mace wouldn't be terrible for the actual battle, it would just be terrible to carry around the rest of the time. A katana is really the overall winner in this situation.